Protac became a part of Roxel ~2010
ok that makes more sense
Also you can see they dont mark it as 2 stage
FWIW while I believe MICA doesn’t have a sustainer, a single stage motor doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a sustainer. A missile could have both booster and sustainer and still be single stage.
Yes, however we know it’s also just boost only so.
1 Like
I guess i was not precise enough.
I did not meant 2 stage as with a discarding booster.
I meant burning stages, and you can see, unlike other missiles, there is no divide inside the motor section on roxel page.
1 Like
Yes we’ve had that conversation already. I’ve also stated that a boost-sustainer modeling in-game gives a better accurate modeling of a boost-only missile due to better modeling the ramp-up and ramp-down in thrust of missiles.
1 Like
Okay that makes a lot more sense.
Don’t believe that is the case, the ramp up and ramp down contribute about <5% of the time. And the change in thrust through the burn itself is close enough to be easily averaged. The only way you would model two burns would be a boost boost motor, which again wouldn’t make much sense to model.
I don’t think the size should be taken into account too much, since the diameters and shapes are all over the place, but it gives a bit more info on MICA NG’s 3rd stage (maybe 2nd stage then, if the main boost has no sustainer ?)
30 years of electronics development for this little cylindrical section X) :
Nothing in that diagram is properly to scale, people really need to stop using it for size comparisons. For example if you assume the width of the air launched MICA to be 160 mm then proportionally it is only 2.6 m long in that image (real missile is 3.1 m long).
Or for another example Meteor is only 6.9% longer than MICA in the diagram, but is 17.7% longer than MICA in real life.
Edit: just realised you were saying it didn’t make sense that VL MICA was on a Roxel website. Thought you were comparing the motor size between the two websites.
It was not for scale, but used to show that Roxel makes the motor
1 Like
Yeah added that in an edit once I realised
2 Likes
Yeah, this diagram looks more to scale. Electronics sections is noticeably smaller.
@DirectSupport did the warhead also get shrunk for MICA NG? Looks a bit smaller in this image.
yeah the diagram is a mess, no missile seems to have its correct dimensions
Regarding the absence of sustainer, i played a bit on statshark (i know it’s not perfect but that’s what we got)
in order to get something that comes anywhere close to a MICA as advertised by MBDA (20km, 30G at 12km), and assuming Fireball estimations are correct you would need to change :
- Engine : sustainer deletion and booster goes from 20.25KN for 2.75s to 19.2KN for 3.75s
- Diameter : 165 → 160mm
- Loft : 5 → 20°
- Life time : 70 → 120s
- Drag coefficient : 1.65 → 1.2 (Amraam at 1.42 for reference)
missile would reach mach 2.05 from 0 in this configuration, but it is questionable if it could hit 30G at a mere mach 0.8 at 12km, reducing the drag further would make the missile go further than 20km
Afaik they did not mention any change to the warhead
Someone forgot to tell the devs cuz the MICA in VL config ingame performs almost the same out around the 13km mark, SLM being like M0.1 faster
SLM as currently implemented in game is a sad joke
A close competition with the manpads article we had a few years back imo
1 Like
I don’t believe 1.2 is necessary, about 1.35-1.4 works fine and that is more realistic.
SAMP/T makes literally no sense anyways. Aster 15 isnt fired by land-based systems, and Italy has the Gryfo, which is an EMADS like the British Sky Sabre.
Its pretty weird they didnt add the VL MICA this update considering the substantial nerfs all the other systems received put their missiles in the same perdormance braxket as the VL MICA, but the VL MICA is just a worse system than the SLM and Spyder (even with the nerfs to the others)
yeah, the 4 ready to fire missles hurt quite bad.
And they even already gave the spyder an imaginary 8 launcher version that didnt exist in reality
1 Like